2025:UHC:7125-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. ALOK MAHRA Special Appeal No. 201 of 2025 13th August, 2025 Manisha Sah ...………Appellant Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Others …….Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand. Ms. Abhilasha Tomar, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for respondent no.3. Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel for respondent no.4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT : (per G. NARENDAR, J.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned State counsel and learned counsel for private respondents. 2. A bare reading of the facts would disclose that it is an inter-se dispute between two private persons, wherein one of the private parties has taken the aid of the Secretary, District Level Development Authority to issue proceedings, 2025:UHC:7125-DB 2 which is injunctive in nature and thereby restraining the Sub-Registrar from performing and discharging his duty of carrying out registrations and cancellation of registrations etc. relating to a property in respect of which both parties claim certain interest under a certain arrangement. 3. The 3rd respondent has fairly admitted before the learned Single Judge that he does not possess such power to injunct the Sub-Registrar from proceeding forward with the discharge of his duties. 4. The crux of the dispute lies in and arises out of a business transaction alleged to have been entered into, between the appellant herein and the 4th respondent. If the parties are aggrieved by any differences pr discord or disagreement arising out of their transaction, the appropriate forum would be the Civil Court and it is not for the Authorities or this Court under Article 226 to entertain and adjudicate a dispute, which is private in nature. 2025:UHC:7125-DB 3 5. In that view of the matter, the appeal, in our considered opinion, is misconceived and is, accordingly, rejected. Rejection of the appeal shall not come in the way of the parties having resort to remedy before the appropriate Court/Forum. 6. It is also pertinent to note that the learned Single Judge has restrained itself to the legality of the action of the 3rd respondent directing the Sub-Registrar not to discharge his duty. 7. It is further made clear that the observation hereinabove are for the disposal of the appeal only, and if the parties choose to approach any Forum or Court, the same shall be considered and disposed of strictly in accordance with law and on its own merits, without being influenced by any observations made by this Court or by the learned Single Judge. (G. NARENDAR, C. J.) (ALOK MAHRA, J.) Dated: 13.08.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:7125-DB 4